DSLR camera which imitates SLR

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm interested is there any DSLR which imitates SLR, I mean with very few controls.. like ISO and Shutter.. and thats all. There may be(or not) expose meter... but more features are not needed...<br>

I dream about digital camera that looks and acts like my Praktica MTL5<br>

all the same features and controls, just digital.<br>

I'm a bit confused when I see the back of any digital camera with 10+ controls...</p>

<p>is there any?</p>

<p>The very nature of digital requires extra controls. So if you are confused, find out which basic controls you want to use and ignore the rest. I would guess most photographers don't use all the controls/settings.</p>

<p>Not really. I am a Pentax user and frequent the Pentax forums, where there are periodic calls for the digital equivalent of the Pentax K1000.</p>

<p>Ain't gonna happen. Today's market (at least in the minds of the marketers) demands bells and whistles. Young buyers have never experienced a manual film SLR camera, if they've even experienced a film camera at all.</p>

<p>I think that one problem such a camera would have is that it would not be much less expensive than its full-featured cousins. First, it would almost certainly be a low volume seller, so it would not benefit from economies of scale.</p>

<p>Secondly, many of the features that you would forego are done in software, not hardware. For that reason, there would be little savings in manufacturing costs. If you can eliminate the autofocus motor, for example, you would save that cost. But eliminating a software feature saves nothing. Reproducing software costs, essentially, nothing. If taken to an extreme, it might (MIGHT!) allow less computer memory, which might save a little money.</p>

<p>Even the software development costs wouldn't be reduced very much, because all of those features have already been developed for other camera models. Any software developer with an ounce of sense cannibalizes old programs to make new ones, so, much of the development must be done anyway, for the full-featured camera.</p>

<p>I don't think you're going to see any manufacturer release a manual-focus-only dslr any time soon, so the AF mechanism must stay. Same for image stabilization. Those are probably the two biggest potential cost savings. The back LCD would save a fair amount, but that's here to stay. I could do without the temperature sensor in my K10D. In a pinch, I wouldn't miss the image orientation sensor. I suspect that those two things, while hardware based, wouldn't save much.</p>

<p>Just get the simplest, most affordable dslr you can find, set everything to manual mode and fire away. I don't know of any dslrs from any maker, in which you can't turn AF, IS and auto-exposure off.</p>

<p>Before I got my K10D, I used to laugh at the dslr photographers, chimping after every shot. Now that I have a dslr, however, I find that chimping is very useful, especially for difficult shots. I don't chimp after every shot, but its nice to be able to look at a shot and see that it is composed correctly and that the exposure is at least close to being right.</p>

<p>Marius,</p>

<p>what you want makes no sense at all. Such a camera would neither be practical, nor would anyone buy it (even YOU would not after you start to understand a digital workflow). You really need to learn about digital (just like you had to learn film) before you start to look for a camera.<br>

In particular, read up about ISO, White Balance, JPEG vs. RAW etc. etc.</p>

<p>The simple SLR you mention required you to change the ISO and color temp settings, too - but you did it by changing film and/or filters. These are now a couple of button clicks. Not hard to understand or operate, and you don't have to waste film just to make the camera more or less light-sensitive. Change ISO, WB, aperture, and shutter speed using the simple controls that all such cameras now provide, and leave the rest alone.</p>

<p>Well.. talking about some "essential" parts of camera... neither autofocus or stabilisation is needed, I use manual and steady hands or tripod, also I don't use lens "longer" than 80mm<br>

If I'll ever need some filters, I'll use them.. why should I need software filter emulation - WB?<br>

Back LCD - lets say, if I virtually have unlimited frame count (at least more than 36) why should I bother to look at them during session or travel shot... if a time is gone than its gone.<br>

About digital workflow - if it failed shot, than its failed (means I need some more practice)<br>

Matt mentioned aperture.. isn't it controlled by a ring on lens?<br>

I also forgot to mention very comfort focusing screen of SLR.<br>

The need of digital raised from costly film scan service, i could buy some scanner but they cost a lot. Somewhere around 20-30 whole film scans.. its about 1-1.5 years of shooting (I don't shoot so much)<br>

p.s.<br>

if there is no other opportunity, what are my choices? Is there any camera+lens kit with price range about 200$, which produces shots with similar quality to 35mm SLRs</p>

<p>As Paul says, todays consumers want as many knobs, buttons and flashing lights as possible so the product is impressive even if not so useful</p>

Sony NEX comes closest to what you are requesting, but it lacks optical viewfinder, so you would have to compose by LCD.

<p>i'm sure some people said the same thing about opposable thumbs, the use of fire, and the wheel too...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>aperture.. isn't it controlled by a ring on lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon "G" lenses don't have an aperture ring anymore - aperture is changed via a command dial on the camera. Same for Canon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pentax forums, where there are periodic calls for the digital equivalent of the Pentax K1000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting, in the Nikon forum, there are periodic requests for a digital Nikon FM...<br /> I can't envision that there would be a huge market for a DSLR without AF and without LCD - and even if such a camera was made, the price point would not be at $200. Besides, why would anyone want to give up one of the most useful tools (LCD) that digital offers?<br /> I am wondering about that $200 "budget" anyway - even at about 2 films per month and assuming a total cost of $25 per scanned film, that's $600 per year for film and scanning alone - about the price of a used DSLR and fairly close to the price of a new one with kit lens.<br /> Don't dream about cameras that don't exist; learn to use what you have and ignore the controls you have no use for. I don't use the AE-L/AF-L button on my DSLR or the AF-ON button - but it doesn't bother me one bit that they are there.</p>

<p>Well, I have opportunity to scan whole film for about 10$.. add 1.2$ for (c41)processing and ~4$ for film.. sum it - 15.2 and multiply to 24 films (2 per month) = 364.8$<br>

but, according to my current usage, 1 day = 1 shot... I'll have less than 10 rolls per year, so its about 152$... but there may be some special days, so I got 3 spare rolls.. and that's about 200$.<br>

but thats only numbers, if there is no cheap Dslr I'll just have to correct my budget.<br>

Thanks for all who wrote.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well.. talking about some "essential" parts of camera... neither autofocus or stabilisation is needed, I use manual and steady hands or tripod, also I don't use lens "longer" than 80mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These are a couple of the few hardware items that would actually reduce the cost of the camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I'll ever need some filters, I'll use them.. why should I need software filter emulation - WB?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, these are purely software in nature. Eliminating them won't save a penny on manufacturing costs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Back LCD - lets say, if I virtually have unlimited frame count (at least more than 36) why should I bother to look at them during session or travel shot... if a time is gone than its gone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but, if you can see that you didn't get the shot, you may have a chance to shoot it again. Granted, this is not always the case, but it often is.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br />Matt mentioned aperture.. isn't it controlled by a ring on lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not on modern dslr lenses. Most new lenses are controlled electrically, but the camera. This is necessary for full lens automation, so the lens/camera makers have eliminated the aperture ring from virtually all newly designed lenses. This DOES save manufacturing costs, as well as warranty costs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br />I also forgot to mention very comfort focusing screen of SLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is more a result of the smaller APS-C and 4/3 sensors used in most dslrs. The full frame dslrs have bigger viewfinders. I agree though, the tiny viewfinders of aps-c dslrs are a step backward. I have a Pentax ME Super with the biggest, brightest viewfinder I've ever seen.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>if there is no other opportunity, what are my choices? Is there any camera+lens kit with price range about 200$, which produces shots with similar quality to 35mm SLRs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many good point & shoot digital cameras can equal a film SLR as far as image quality is concerned, especially in good light and moderate enlargements. Where they begin to fail is in low light or other difficult situations. Of course, with their tiny sensors and very short focal length lenses, truly shallow depth of field is impossible. Also, very few allow accessories such as external flash, or interchangeable lenses. Most p & s cameras, except the absolute cheapest (and you really don't want a $50 digicam; they're awful) have far more options than even the most sophisticated film slr; optical and digital zoom, auto exposure, burst mode shots, video, auto white balance, picture effects, autofocus, etc.</p>

<p>Heck, even my cell phone has video, white balance, picture effects, basic photo editting. And its not even a "Smartphone". Its a plain Sony-Ericcson phone.</p>

<p>As far as the price of a dslr goes, compared to old film slrs, I paid $220 for my Pentax Spotmatic, new, in 1967. Someone found an online inflation calculator and determined that that is the equivalent of over $1300 today. You can buy a pretty darned good dslr for quite a bit less than that, so in reality, a modern dslr is no more expensive than the old cameras we like to reminisce about.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I sympathize with your wish for the "good old days". There's a lot of stuff on my K10D that I seldom use and could easily do without. But, in the face of today's manufacturing and marketing realities, we probably won't see such a camera again.</p>

<p>If the camera makers perceived a market for such a camera, and could produce one at the kind of price-point you're talking about, surely they would have, especially one of the brands with small market share, such as Pentax or Olympus.</p>

<p>Like the OP I'd rather like a simple, cheaper DSLR with more or less the same features as my old Practika LTL3 or my later Olmpus OM10. One of the things about film cameras was that the image quality was ultimately only dependent on the film, lens and user. A cheap body could take as good a pic as an expensive one.</p>

<p>I have a D7000 at the mo and, until recently, a D80. I've been happy with them other than their ease of use in enitrely manual mode + metering. How I'd love a twinkly thing and a split image circle in the viewfinder in place of that green dot. That alone, I think, would enable me to use my D7000 purely manually in a way which is as easy as my older film cameras. Couple that with a simulation of match needle metering and I'd be in manual heaven.</p>

Check out the next to arrive fuji X100, is not a dslr, but for nostalgics and rangefinder lovers seems to be the best

option.

<p>Marius: as far as production costs go, even if such a digital camera would be produced, it would be much more expensive than a "normal" digital camera.<br>

Granted, it would lack VR, AF and all those knobs that make life with digital so pleasant, but it would produce/sell in small numbers, and this equals EXPENSIVE.<br>

Besides, a digital camera similar to what you desire allready exists, it's called a <strong>Leica</strong>.<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>No.<br>

Get a film camera for next to nothing nowadays and have some fun shooting negative film, where you wont have to worry about exposures, histograms, etc.</p>

<p>The digital body has been going on for a while now to have a generation who had never used film. Those who had used film in the past have sold their film gear and moves to digital for good. There are a few unusual nutcases like myself who continues to use film alongside digital. There are still a few purists who only shoot film. The problem with your requirement is that so much had gone on in between. If digital came in 1979 you would have had your request.</p>

<p>For absolutely the most basic and elemental SLR camera,</p>

<ol>

<li>Stick with film</li>

<li>Get a Zenit, it hardly matters which model.</li>

</ol>

<p>Otherwise set your dSLR to Manual, and learn which dials, knobs, and whiz-bangs you need to use to control the shutter speed and aperture setting.<br>

As for the <strong>Praktica MTL5</strong> - if you dream about it, why not get another one and shoot with it?<br>

Of course, back in the time when it was new, many people thought that the MTL5 was way too complex and automatic, and yearned for the old preset days on their Praktiflexes.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>It's probably considered a dinosaur by Today's standards, but I use a Panasonic DMC-L1 to supplement my other digital DSLRs. It has a shutterspeed dial on top, The usual lens is a Pana-Leica 14-50mm which has an aperture ring, AND of course, a manual focus that is accessed by a small switch on the back of the camera. <br>

I am very fond of this camera because I can manually control all shooting aspects without having to access menus.<br>

I hope this helps somewhat.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>20-30 whole film scans.. its about 1-1.5 years of shooting</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's the answer... "shoot a lot", and eventually you'll want all the auto things and more. Some things simply cannot be anticipated like a model's expressions, birds in flight... you don't want to be fumbling with the focus ring when they happen. Whatever one's level of expertise, auto enabled cameras will provide for more keepers. And it does not take long to figure out how to use it the way you want it to... maybe a month or two. And you'll always have the option to put something specific on manual if you want to.</p>

<p>I had wanted a digital FM2 too, 5 or 6 years back, but it really makes no sense... apart from the giant bright viewfinder that even the D700 does not have.</p>

<p>Indraneel: try the D3, the D700 has a visibly smaller viewfinder, albeit big enough as it is. this is the only reason I would want to upgrade my D700 to a single digit body.</p>

<p>To me you sound like a person who plans to buy a car and have a donkey pull it.</p>

<p>However ...</p>

<p>I use Adaptall-2 glass sometimes on a Pentax K-10D with a split focus screen ( mine is from a company called Katz Eye, but the eBay versions are basically fine and cheaper ). On Pentax DSLRs there is a green button that calculates a suitable exposure time and/or ISO level. You're free to move away from that if you want or just directly set exposure yourself.</p>

<p>Most DSLRs are crop frame ( use a sensor smaller than 35mm film ) and hence give a narrower field of view than the 35mm stated focus length would lead you to think. This also means that the viewfinders are smaller. To get around that you'd need a more expensive full frame DSLR ( used Canon 5D ? ).</p>

<p>Modern lenses often do not have aperture rings. On these lenses the camera controls aperture although you can, of course, set it to whatever you want.</p>

<p>To be honest I think your plan is simply silly. Why deliberately seek to deprive yourself of the advantages of modern technology ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Nicolaie for the tip. I wonder what makes it so difficult to put a good viewfinder in these non-D3 cameras...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Modern lenses often do not have aperture rings.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That will be most unfortunate if true. At least I find it easier to turn the big aperture ring rather than a tiny dial (that too with my index finger which should really be on the release). And elsewhere in the forums, nearly everybody shoots either aperture priority or manual, not program or shutter priority, so the ring isn't exactly a redundant feature. Thankfully, at least all my modern lenses have rings...</p>

<p>In the service I was told that "the best way to oppose a tank is with another tank" and "the best way to neutralise a sniper is with another sniper".</p>

<p>So, the best way to imitate an SLR must be - with another SLR! Simple and effective.</p>

<p>I was looking for the same thing as Marius, and I think the Fuji X100 will be nearest to that, except that it's not an SLR. No interchangeable lenses either, and I guess it will cost something more like $1000 instead of $200.<br>

<a href="http://www.finepix-x100.com/">http://www.finepix-x100.com/</a></p>

<p>Indraneel, most lower end modern cameras do not even offer the possibility to set the aperture through the aperture ring. They give you an error message if you try to do that.</p>